A coalition of local, state, and national environmental groups filed
a lawsuit today to ensure that the Federal Government, including Attorney
General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the
U.S. Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, considers ways
of improving border security without unnecessarily hurting San Diego
area communities and the environment. The Federal Government has proposed
a 14-mile, triple-fence project, which would destroy popular parks, hiking
trails, and wildlife habitat, has already drawn opposition from the cities
of Imperial Beach, National City, and Chula Vista and San Diego County,
and raised concerns from several state agencies.

"Everyone agrees that we need to tighten up border security, but
we should be able to do that without hurting the communities who live
nearby," stated Jim Peugh from the San Diego Chapter of the Audubon
Society, "The plan on the table would destroy the whole mesa along
with popular parks and recreation areas."

Joining together on the suit are the The Center For Biological Diversity,
San Diego BayKeeper, San Diego Audubon, the Sierra Club, California Native
Plant Society, and the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Center. The plaintiffs
contend that the project violated the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) when it completely ignored viable, border fence alternatives that
would have a less adverse impact on the environment and surrounding communities.
In October 2003, the California Coastal Commission staff issued a report
recommending that the Commission find the project to be inconsistent
with the Coastal Zone Management Act because of the availability of less
environmentally destructive alternatives.

"The current proposal would create 10 problems for every one it
solved," says Bruce Reznik, Executive Director of San Diego BayKeeper. "INS
doesn't want to look at alternatives, but they owe it to the people who
have to live here to obey the law and consider less harmful solutions."

In response to a 1996 congressional mandate, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) proposed and started to construct a 14-mile border infrastructure
system to increase security around a current border fence. The proposed
project would involve constructing secondary and tertiary fencing parallel
to the existing fence, along with associated patrol and maintenance roads
and other related infrastructure. The new fencing would start at the
Pacific Ocean and extend 14-miles inland to the foothills of the San
Ysidro Mountains.

The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
and cultural impacts. In order to create flat roadways between the fences,
the government would remove numerous hilltops and fill sensitive canyons,
thus causing a massive loss of sensitive coastal habitat. Erosion would
smother the Tijuana River National Estuary and reduce tidal flushing
and harm already endangered wildlife. The development would also destroy
popular parks and trails for a region, which has been struggling to keep
up with recreation demands of a fast growing population. Finally, the
proposed project would increase flooding for the 25,000 residents of
Tijuana.

Although several less environmentally and socially destructive alternatives
were proposed to secure the border, the Federal Government ignored them.
Proposed alternatives included fortifying the primary fence, building
fences without accompanying roads, and switch-backing the roads through
the canyons. Despite the fact that these alternatives would meet border
patrol needs, the INS dismissed them in order to build a large, flat
border fence infrastructure, which would maximize operational efficiency.

"The fact that so many surrounding communities and relevant state
agencies have such strong concerns should have been enough incentive
for INS to find a better way." "So far, it hasn't been, and
so we're left with no choice but to take our concerns to court."

Cory Briggs and Peter Mesich, of Briggs Law Corp. and Gabriel Solmer
of San Diego BayKeeper will be litigating this case along with Adam Keats
of the Center for Biological Diversity and the law offices of Everett
L DeLano III, who are representing the Center for Biological Diversity
in the case.

Talking Points
Press Conference- Filing of NEPA Lawsuit

The purpose of this lawsuit is to protest the unacceptable Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) that was released by the Federal Government
in July of 2003. We (the Sierra Club, San Diego Audubon, California Native
Plant Society, San Diego BayKeeper, Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
Association and the Center for Biological Diversity) want an EIS that complies
with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Everyone agrees that we need safe borders, but
we should be able to achieve that without hurting the communities
who live nearby.
The current proposal is pure overkill, like slicing a stick of butter
with a chainsaw. The triple-fence design would be wide enough to
land
a 737 and create as much fill as two Hoover Dams.

This is about protecting communities and the people who live
here and a government agency that just won't listen. This proposal
has drawn the opposition of Imperial Beach, National City, and Chula
Vista,
and San Diego County, not to mention the state California Coastal
Commission. The State Fish and Game and Parks and Rec. departments
have also expressed
concern, as has the Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, State Senators
Dede Alpert, Denise Moreno Ducheney, Christine Kehoe, and Juan Vargas,
and U.S. Representatives Bob Filner, and Susan Davis.

Rather than sticking with a bad plan, the federal government
ought to get together with all of these stakeholders to find a workable
solution. That's not just common sense; the law expressly says that
federal agencies are supposed to at least consider less harmful alternatives.
That hasn't happened here.

Quotes

From the California Coastal Commission staff report regarding federal
consistency for the final 3.5 miles of the proposed Border Infrastructure
System Project:

"
The current proposal does not strike a reasonable balance between Border
Patrol and resource protection needs," the report concludes. "Feasible
alternatives are available that would significantly lessen adverse
impacts to coastal zone resources and still enable the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to meet its Border Patrol needs."

From County Supervisor Greg Cox, whose district includes Imperial Beach

"Granted, there's a need to beef up the fence
down there but I think it can be done without desecrating a mesa
and destroying a
park,"